NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8493

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!news.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!gmw1
From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:37:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 66
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
>in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
>who address the issue directly.

I have, actually.  Unique means "being the only one of its kind."
That people also use it to mean "very unusual" doesn't mean much.
People use words incorrectly, unfortunately.  Some people use "unique"
to mean "unusual" when we have a perfectly fine word "unusual" to use
for that.  Some people say "imply" when they mean "infer."  Heck, some
very good dictionaries make the mistake of naming "infer" and "imply"
as synonyms.  That some dictionaries, or Evans and Evans or whoever,
list "unique" as meaning "unusual" impresses me not.


>Now, having said that, what does "quite unique" have to do with the
>"either/or" issue?  As I said (and you chose to delete), "quite
>unique" can mean: not only unique, but also unapproached.  People
>don't just use the word "unique" to mean "one-of-a-kind", simply
>because such distinctions aren't made often.  Teh *degree* of
>difference is also of interest in many cases.

They may be of interest, and English is fraught with words to express
those degrees.  Unique ain't one of 'em.

>As long as you don't care about what words mean, go ahead.  "Quite unique
>has a fairly obvious meaning.  Too bad your irrelevant logic-chopping
>is more important than actual standard usage.

The 'standard usage'??  Wazzat?  The same usage that has people saying
"me and my friends..." and "ten items or less" or other beastly
breaches of grammar?  That sure isn't what I consider standard english.
As for caring about what words mean, I care very much about what words
mean, which is why I find the distinction between "unique" and simply
"unusual" a valid and valuable one.

>>By using the word improperly (such as
>>in "more unique" and other beastly abuses), the weight of the word is
>>lessened.
>
>Bull.  By getting snippy about one meaning of a word long acknowledged
>to have several meanings -- controlled by context, of course -- you
>show that you're more interested in putting people down than in listening
>to what they're saying.
>
>Or are you telling me that you're not bright enough to figure out
>what "unique" means in a given context?

Gee whiz, look who's getting snippy now?  We can figure a lot of
things out from context.  If someone says "Me and my friends is the
uniquest," we can figure it out from context.  It has nothing to do
with being "bright enough" as you well know.  It just so happens that
words in a language have individual meanings, and there's no reason to
use the wrong word.

I am once again amazed at your never-ending ability to turn people's
grammatical errors into Roger's own acceptable usage.  I'm also once
again not surprised at your inability to disagree without being rude.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]       to be seriously considered as a means of
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877